[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

[Saelune]

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Maybe try not cutting parts out that disprove you.

I want Trump to be consistent. He is only consistently hypocritical. He COULD go 'I am sorry for criticizing Hillary for what she did. It was not wrong of her to do'. Or he could condemn his daughter. He could have principles. He doesn't.

You want to pretend both sides are the same, but the fact is, they aren't.

How does that disprove anything? How is that anything like an argumentative statement? What matters here is you just admitted that you know Hillary broke the law and just don't care. And that apathy is haunting the Mueller investigation.

I am saying that Trump thinks what Hillary did is wrong, and should treat Ivanka the same. If Trump never got up Hillary's ass about her emails, I wouldn't have given a fuck about Ivanka doing the same.

I care that Trump is a hypocrite. If you really have a problem with people who 'defend their own side no matter what', then you should be really mad at Trump, McConnel, Barr, etc.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Maybe try not cutting parts out that disprove you.

I want Trump to be consistent. He is only consistently hypocritical. He COULD go 'I am sorry for criticizing Hillary for what she did. It was not wrong of her to do'. Or he could condemn his daughter. He could have principles. He doesn't.

You want to pretend both sides are the same, but the fact is, they aren't.

How does that disprove anything? How is that anything like an argumentative statement? What matters here is you just admitted that you know Hillary broke the law and just don't care. And that apathy is haunting the Mueller investigation.

I am saying that Trump thinks what Hillary did is wrong, and should treat Ivanka the same. If Trump never got up Hillary's ass about her emails, I wouldn't have given a fuck about Ivanka doing the same.

I care that Trump is a hypocrite. If you really have a problem with people who 'defend their own side no matter what', then you should be really mad at Trump, McConnel, Barr, etc.

I'm saying that the selective application of laws in the past have paved the way for the current situation where we had Mueller investigate Trump for years and come up with "can't really do anything with all this though".

In other words, this fervor you have for prosecuting Trump should have been on display before.

I mean, nothing either of us say on this forum really matter, all things considered. But the idea is that this situation was easily predictable long in advance.

 

[Saelune]

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Maybe try not cutting parts out that disprove you.

I want Trump to be consistent. He is only consistently hypocritical. He COULD go 'I am sorry for criticizing Hillary for what she did. It was not wrong of her to do'. Or he could condemn his daughter. He could have principles. He doesn't.

You want to pretend both sides are the same, but the fact is, they aren't.

How does that disprove anything? How is that anything like an argumentative statement? What matters here is you just admitted that you know Hillary broke the law and just don't care. And that apathy is haunting the Mueller investigation.

I am saying that Trump thinks what Hillary did is wrong, and should treat Ivanka the same. If Trump never got up Hillary's ass about her emails, I wouldn't have given a fuck about Ivanka doing the same.

I care that Trump is a hypocrite. If you really have a problem with people who 'defend their own side no matter what', then you should be really mad at Trump, McConnel, Barr, etc.

I'm saying that the selective application of laws in the past have paved the way for the current situation where we had Mueller investigate Trump for years and come up with "can't really do anything with all this though".

In other words, this fervor you have for prosecuting Trump should have been on display before.

I mean, nothing either of us say on this forum really matter, all things considered. But the idea is that this situation was easily predictable long in advance.

Again, you want to pretend both sides are the same when you are actually criticizing the Republican party, but putting the blame on Democrats.

If you really cared about this, you would be mad at Republicans right now, ya know, the side doing the wrong things. The side with Barr who is lying about the report and is unabashedly defending Trump when his job is supposed to be about siding with justice. The side with a President who got less votes and does all the things that should disqualify any candidate in a civil society, but gets defended no matter what. The side with a known pedophile who is currently more popular than his opponents in Alabama. The side with Micth McConnel who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton but now suddenly believes the (Republican) President is above the law.

But hey, saying one thing, but doing the opposite, there is a word for that. Kind of a theme here. Hypocrite.

But hey, Republican terrorists have shot up schools, and synagogues, run over and murdered a woman with their car, and sent bombs to left-wing politicians, but I guess Jessie Smollett makes all of that ok?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Maybe try not cutting parts out that disprove you.

I want Trump to be consistent. He is only consistently hypocritical. He COULD go 'I am sorry for criticizing Hillary for what she did. It was not wrong of her to do'. Or he could condemn his daughter. He could have principles. He doesn't.

You want to pretend both sides are the same, but the fact is, they aren't.

How does that disprove anything? How is that anything like an argumentative statement? What matters here is you just admitted that you know Hillary broke the law and just don't care. And that apathy is haunting the Mueller investigation.

I am saying that Trump thinks what Hillary did is wrong, and should treat Ivanka the same. If Trump never got up Hillary's ass about her emails, I wouldn't have given a fuck about Ivanka doing the same.

I care that Trump is a hypocrite. If you really have a problem with people who 'defend their own side no matter what', then you should be really mad at Trump, McConnel, Barr, etc.

I'm saying that the selective application of laws in the past have paved the way for the current situation where we had Mueller investigate Trump for years and come up with "can't really do anything with all this though".

In other words, this fervor you have for prosecuting Trump should have been on display before.

I mean, nothing either of us say on this forum really matter, all things considered. But the idea is that this situation was easily predictable long in advance.

Again, you want to pretend both sides are the same when you are actually criticizing the Republican party, but putting the blame on Democrats.

If you really cared about this, you would be mad at Republicans right now, ya know, the side doing the wrong things. The side with Barr who is lying about the report and is unabashedly defending Trump when his job is supposed to be about siding with justice. The side with a President who got less votes and does all the things that should disqualify any candidate in a civil society, but gets defended no matter what. The side with a known pedophile who is currently more popular than his opponents in Alabama. The side with Micth McConnel who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton but now suddenly believes the (Republican) President is above the law.

But hey, saying one thing, but doing the opposite, there is a word for that. Kind of a theme here. Hypocrite.

But hey, Republican terrorists have shot up schools, and synagogues, run over and murdered a woman with their car, and sent bombs to left-wing politicians, but I guess Jessie Smollett makes all of that ok?

Ok. I don't know how Smollett gets in this, but sure.

All I can actually hope for is for the Mueller investigation to get it's moment in the spotlight, then shoo'd off stage for decent candidates to get started talking.

I have the feeling though we'll be hearing about Beto O'Rourke all day every day. It'll be nice and depressing.

 

[Saelune]

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Maybe try not cutting parts out that disprove you.

I want Trump to be consistent. He is only consistently hypocritical. He COULD go 'I am sorry for criticizing Hillary for what she did. It was not wrong of her to do'. Or he could condemn his daughter. He could have principles. He doesn't.

You want to pretend both sides are the same, but the fact is, they aren't.

How does that disprove anything? How is that anything like an argumentative statement? What matters here is you just admitted that you know Hillary broke the law and just don't care. And that apathy is haunting the Mueller investigation.

I am saying that Trump thinks what Hillary did is wrong, and should treat Ivanka the same. If Trump never got up Hillary's ass about her emails, I wouldn't have given a fuck about Ivanka doing the same.

I care that Trump is a hypocrite. If you really have a problem with people who 'defend their own side no matter what', then you should be really mad at Trump, McConnel, Barr, etc.

I'm saying that the selective application of laws in the past have paved the way for the current situation where we had Mueller investigate Trump for years and come up with "can't really do anything with all this though".

In other words, this fervor you have for prosecuting Trump should have been on display before.

I mean, nothing either of us say on this forum really matter, all things considered. But the idea is that this situation was easily predictable long in advance.

Again, you want to pretend both sides are the same when you are actually criticizing the Republican party, but putting the blame on Democrats.

If you really cared about this, you would be mad at Republicans right now, ya know, the side doing the wrong things. The side with Barr who is lying about the report and is unabashedly defending Trump when his job is supposed to be about siding with justice. The side with a President who got less votes and does all the things that should disqualify any candidate in a civil society, but gets defended no matter what. The side with a known pedophile who is currently more popular than his opponents in Alabama. The side with Micth McConnel who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton but now suddenly believes the (Republican) President is above the law.

But hey, saying one thing, but doing the opposite, there is a word for that. Kind of a theme here. Hypocrite.

But hey, Republican terrorists have shot up schools, and synagogues, run over and murdered a woman with their car, and sent bombs to left-wing politicians, but I guess Jessie Smollett makes all of that ok?

Ok. I don't know how Smollett gets in this, but sure.

All I can actually hope for is for the Mueller investigation to get it's moment in the spotlight, then shoo'd off stage for decent candidates to get started talking.

I have the feeling though we'll be hearing about Beto O'Rourke all day every day. It'll be nice and depressing.

What you should want, for all your talk of 'laws' and 'legalities' is for the criminal Trump and all his criminal buddies to be properly punished. You should not want it all to be swept under the rug and ignored.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Maybe try not cutting parts out that disprove you.

I want Trump to be consistent. He is only consistently hypocritical. He COULD go 'I am sorry for criticizing Hillary for what she did. It was not wrong of her to do'. Or he could condemn his daughter. He could have principles. He doesn't.

You want to pretend both sides are the same, but the fact is, they aren't.

How does that disprove anything? How is that anything like an argumentative statement? What matters here is you just admitted that you know Hillary broke the law and just don't care. And that apathy is haunting the Mueller investigation.

I am saying that Trump thinks what Hillary did is wrong, and should treat Ivanka the same. If Trump never got up Hillary's ass about her emails, I wouldn't have given a fuck about Ivanka doing the same.

I care that Trump is a hypocrite. If you really have a problem with people who 'defend their own side no matter what', then you should be really mad at Trump, McConnel, Barr, etc.

I'm saying that the selective application of laws in the past have paved the way for the current situation where we had Mueller investigate Trump for years and come up with "can't really do anything with all this though".

In other words, this fervor you have for prosecuting Trump should have been on display before.

I mean, nothing either of us say on this forum really matter, all things considered. But the idea is that this situation was easily predictable long in advance.

Again, you want to pretend both sides are the same when you are actually criticizing the Republican party, but putting the blame on Democrats.

If you really cared about this, you would be mad at Republicans right now, ya know, the side doing the wrong things. The side with Barr who is lying about the report and is unabashedly defending Trump when his job is supposed to be about siding with justice. The side with a President who got less votes and does all the things that should disqualify any candidate in a civil society, but gets defended no matter what. The side with a known pedophile who is currently more popular than his opponents in Alabama. The side with Micth McConnel who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton but now suddenly believes the (Republican) President is above the law.

But hey, saying one thing, but doing the opposite, there is a word for that. Kind of a theme here. Hypocrite.

But hey, Republican terrorists have shot up schools, and synagogues, run over and murdered a woman with their car, and sent bombs to left-wing politicians, but I guess Jessie Smollett makes all of that ok?

Ok. I don't know how Smollett gets in this, but sure.

All I can actually hope for is for the Mueller investigation to get it's moment in the spotlight, then shoo'd off stage for decent candidates to get started talking.

I have the feeling though we'll be hearing about Beto O'Rourke all day every day. It'll be nice and depressing.

What you should want, for all your talk of 'laws' and 'legalities' is for the criminal Trump and all his criminal buddies to be properly punished. You should not want it all to be swept under the rug and ignored.

Ideally yes, but it's not going to happen because the law is currently structured in such a way that they won't be. Well, some of his underlings will (and have), but over minor random shit. Anything that's actually truly harmful isn't illegal.

 

[Saelune]

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Maybe try not cutting parts out that disprove you.

I want Trump to be consistent. He is only consistently hypocritical. He COULD go 'I am sorry for criticizing Hillary for what she did. It was not wrong of her to do'. Or he could condemn his daughter. He could have principles. He doesn't.

You want to pretend both sides are the same, but the fact is, they aren't.

How does that disprove anything? How is that anything like an argumentative statement? What matters here is you just admitted that you know Hillary broke the law and just don't care. And that apathy is haunting the Mueller investigation.

I am saying that Trump thinks what Hillary did is wrong, and should treat Ivanka the same. If Trump never got up Hillary's ass about her emails, I wouldn't have given a fuck about Ivanka doing the same.

I care that Trump is a hypocrite. If you really have a problem with people who 'defend their own side no matter what', then you should be really mad at Trump, McConnel, Barr, etc.

I'm saying that the selective application of laws in the past have paved the way for the current situation where we had Mueller investigate Trump for years and come up with "can't really do anything with all this though".

In other words, this fervor you have for prosecuting Trump should have been on display before.

I mean, nothing either of us say on this forum really matter, all things considered. But the idea is that this situation was easily predictable long in advance.

Again, you want to pretend both sides are the same when you are actually criticizing the Republican party, but putting the blame on Democrats.

If you really cared about this, you would be mad at Republicans right now, ya know, the side doing the wrong things. The side with Barr who is lying about the report and is unabashedly defending Trump when his job is supposed to be about siding with justice. The side with a President who got less votes and does all the things that should disqualify any candidate in a civil society, but gets defended no matter what. The side with a known pedophile who is currently more popular than his opponents in Alabama. The side with Micth McConnel who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton but now suddenly believes the (Republican) President is above the law.

But hey, saying one thing, but doing the opposite, there is a word for that. Kind of a theme here. Hypocrite.

But hey, Republican terrorists have shot up schools, and synagogues, run over and murdered a woman with their car, and sent bombs to left-wing politicians, but I guess Jessie Smollett makes all of that ok?

Ok. I don't know how Smollett gets in this, but sure.

All I can actually hope for is for the Mueller investigation to get it's moment in the spotlight, then shoo'd off stage for decent candidates to get started talking.

I have the feeling though we'll be hearing about Beto O'Rourke all day every day. It'll be nice and depressing.

What you should want, for all your talk of 'laws' and 'legalities' is for the criminal Trump and all his criminal buddies to be properly punished. You should not want it all to be swept under the rug and ignored.

Ideally yes, but it's not going to happen because the law is currently structured in such a way that they won't be. Well, some of his underlings will (and have), but over minor random shit. Anything that's actually truly harmful isn't illegal.

I blame apathy.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Maybe try not cutting parts out that disprove you.

I want Trump to be consistent. He is only consistently hypocritical. He COULD go 'I am sorry for criticizing Hillary for what she did. It was not wrong of her to do'. Or he could condemn his daughter. He could have principles. He doesn't.

You want to pretend both sides are the same, but the fact is, they aren't.

How does that disprove anything? How is that anything like an argumentative statement? What matters here is you just admitted that you know Hillary broke the law and just don't care. And that apathy is haunting the Mueller investigation.

I am saying that Trump thinks what Hillary did is wrong, and should treat Ivanka the same. If Trump never got up Hillary's ass about her emails, I wouldn't have given a fuck about Ivanka doing the same.

I care that Trump is a hypocrite. If you really have a problem with people who 'defend their own side no matter what', then you should be really mad at Trump, McConnel, Barr, etc.

I'm saying that the selective application of laws in the past have paved the way for the current situation where we had Mueller investigate Trump for years and come up with "can't really do anything with all this though".

In other words, this fervor you have for prosecuting Trump should have been on display before.

I mean, nothing either of us say on this forum really matter, all things considered. But the idea is that this situation was easily predictable long in advance.

Again, you want to pretend both sides are the same when you are actually criticizing the Republican party, but putting the blame on Democrats.

If you really cared about this, you would be mad at Republicans right now, ya know, the side doing the wrong things. The side with Barr who is lying about the report and is unabashedly defending Trump when his job is supposed to be about siding with justice. The side with a President who got less votes and does all the things that should disqualify any candidate in a civil society, but gets defended no matter what. The side with a known pedophile who is currently more popular than his opponents in Alabama. The side with Micth McConnel who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton but now suddenly believes the (Republican) President is above the law.

But hey, saying one thing, but doing the opposite, there is a word for that. Kind of a theme here. Hypocrite.

But hey, Republican terrorists have shot up schools, and synagogues, run over and murdered a woman with their car, and sent bombs to left-wing politicians, but I guess Jessie Smollett makes all of that ok?

Ok. I don't know how Smollett gets in this, but sure.

All I can actually hope for is for the Mueller investigation to get it's moment in the spotlight, then shoo'd off stage for decent candidates to get started talking.

I have the feeling though we'll be hearing about Beto O'Rourke all day every day. It'll be nice and depressing.

What you should want, for all your talk of 'laws' and 'legalities' is for the criminal Trump and all his criminal buddies to be properly punished. You should not want it all to be swept under the rug and ignored.

Ideally yes, but it's not going to happen because the law is currently structured in such a way that they won't be. Well, some of his underlings will (and have), but over minor random shit. Anything that's actually truly harmful isn't illegal.

I blame apathy.

It's been a systemic apathy for decades.

 

[Saelune]

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Maybe try not cutting parts out that disprove you.

I want Trump to be consistent. He is only consistently hypocritical. He COULD go 'I am sorry for criticizing Hillary for what she did. It was not wrong of her to do'. Or he could condemn his daughter. He could have principles. He doesn't.

You want to pretend both sides are the same, but the fact is, they aren't.

How does that disprove anything? How is that anything like an argumentative statement? What matters here is you just admitted that you know Hillary broke the law and just don't care. And that apathy is haunting the Mueller investigation.

I am saying that Trump thinks what Hillary did is wrong, and should treat Ivanka the same. If Trump never got up Hillary's ass about her emails, I wouldn't have given a fuck about Ivanka doing the same.

I care that Trump is a hypocrite. If you really have a problem with people who 'defend their own side no matter what', then you should be really mad at Trump, McConnel, Barr, etc.

I'm saying that the selective application of laws in the past have paved the way for the current situation where we had Mueller investigate Trump for years and come up with "can't really do anything with all this though".

In other words, this fervor you have for prosecuting Trump should have been on display before.

I mean, nothing either of us say on this forum really matter, all things considered. But the idea is that this situation was easily predictable long in advance.

Again, you want to pretend both sides are the same when you are actually criticizing the Republican party, but putting the blame on Democrats.

If you really cared about this, you would be mad at Republicans right now, ya know, the side doing the wrong things. The side with Barr who is lying about the report and is unabashedly defending Trump when his job is supposed to be about siding with justice. The side with a President who got less votes and does all the things that should disqualify any candidate in a civil society, but gets defended no matter what. The side with a known pedophile who is currently more popular than his opponents in Alabama. The side with Micth McConnel who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton but now suddenly believes the (Republican) President is above the law.

But hey, saying one thing, but doing the opposite, there is a word for that. Kind of a theme here. Hypocrite.

But hey, Republican terrorists have shot up schools, and synagogues, run over and murdered a woman with their car, and sent bombs to left-wing politicians, but I guess Jessie Smollett makes all of that ok?

Ok. I don't know how Smollett gets in this, but sure.

All I can actually hope for is for the Mueller investigation to get it's moment in the spotlight, then shoo'd off stage for decent candidates to get started talking.

I have the feeling though we'll be hearing about Beto O'Rourke all day every day. It'll be nice and depressing.

What you should want, for all your talk of 'laws' and 'legalities' is for the criminal Trump and all his criminal buddies to be properly punished. You should not want it all to be swept under the rug and ignored.

Ideally yes, but it's not going to happen because the law is currently structured in such a way that they won't be. Well, some of his underlings will (and have), but over minor random shit. Anything that's actually truly harmful isn't illegal.

I blame apathy.

It's been a systemic apathy for decades.

Too many people don't care, and too many more prefer to blame the people who do care rather than start caring themselves.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

You say that like you contradicted anything I said. In fact, it reads like you agree with me.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did

But the point of this exercise is that people only care about the laws being enforced when it's someone you don't like breaking them. And it's a bit early to say, but it's looking like it will shape up exactly how you would expect such behavior to turn out. A fat load of nothing for Trump.

If he wasn't, Ivanka would be behind bars for doing what Clinton did, or atleast he would condemn his daughter, OR apologize to Clinton. He didn't, because he is a hypocrite.

If you want to bash on Clinton, try being right first.

Maybe try not cutting parts out that disprove you.

I want Trump to be consistent. He is only consistently hypocritical. He COULD go 'I am sorry for criticizing Hillary for what she did. It was not wrong of her to do'. Or he could condemn his daughter. He could have principles. He doesn't.

You want to pretend both sides are the same, but the fact is, they aren't.

How does that disprove anything? How is that anything like an argumentative statement? What matters here is you just admitted that you know Hillary broke the law and just don't care. And that apathy is haunting the Mueller investigation.

I am saying that Trump thinks what Hillary did is wrong, and should treat Ivanka the same. If Trump never got up Hillary's ass about her emails, I wouldn't have given a fuck about Ivanka doing the same.

I care that Trump is a hypocrite. If you really have a problem with people who 'defend their own side no matter what', then you should be really mad at Trump, McConnel, Barr, etc.

I'm saying that the selective application of laws in the past have paved the way for the current situation where we had Mueller investigate Trump for years and come up with "can't really do anything with all this though".

In other words, this fervor you have for prosecuting Trump should have been on display before.

I mean, nothing either of us say on this forum really matter, all things considered. But the idea is that this situation was easily predictable long in advance.

Again, you want to pretend both sides are the same when you are actually criticizing the Republican party, but putting the blame on Democrats.

If you really cared about this, you would be mad at Republicans right now, ya know, the side doing the wrong things. The side with Barr who is lying about the report and is unabashedly defending Trump when his job is supposed to be about siding with justice. The side with a President who got less votes and does all the things that should disqualify any candidate in a civil society, but gets defended no matter what. The side with a known pedophile who is currently more popular than his opponents in Alabama. The side with Micth McConnel who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton but now suddenly believes the (Republican) President is above the law.

But hey, saying one thing, but doing the opposite, there is a word for that. Kind of a theme here. Hypocrite.

But hey, Republican terrorists have shot up schools, and synagogues, run over and murdered a woman with their car, and sent bombs to left-wing politicians, but I guess Jessie Smollett makes all of that ok?

Ok. I don't know how Smollett gets in this, but sure.

All I can actually hope for is for the Mueller investigation to get it's moment in the spotlight, then shoo'd off stage for decent candidates to get started talking.

I have the feeling though we'll be hearing about Beto O'Rourke all day every day. It'll be nice and depressing.

What you should want, for all your talk of 'laws' and 'legalities' is for the criminal Trump and all his criminal buddies to be properly punished. You should not want it all to be swept under the rug and ignored.

Ideally yes, but it's not going to happen because the law is currently structured in such a way that they won't be. Well, some of his underlings will (and have), but over minor random shit. Anything that's actually truly harmful isn't illegal.

I blame apathy.

It's been a systemic apathy for decades.

Too many people don't care, and too many more prefer to blame the people who do care rather than start caring themselves.

I can tell you're trying to imply it's me, but this is what I tried to say years ago. You're a tad late to the party.

 

[Agema]

But uhhh, that's what happened...

No it's not, as per your own quotation from the LA Times. Specifically (my bold):

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

There's a lot of difference between a "potential violation" and a "violation"; the latter clause of the sentence clearly indicates the evidence would very likely fail if tested in court.

The episode is embarrassing for Clinton, and it's right she should be hauled over the coals for recklessness, ideally as a lesson for others*. But the FBI's official judgement unambiguously states that the agency cannot adequately determine that she broke the law.

* We might note the Trump team have ignored that lesson, despite their fixation with Clinton's email woes, because they have been caught doing the same or similar. That should be no surprise, however, because Trump's modus operandi has been contempt of rules, regulations and good process at every turn to get away with what he can, both as businessman and president.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

But uhhh, that's what happened...

No it's not, as per your own quotation from the LA Times. Specifically (my bold):

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

There's a lot of difference between a "potential violation" and a "violation"; the latter clause of the sentence clearly indicates the evidence would very likely fail if tested in court.

The episode is embarrassing for Clinton, and it's right she should be hauled over the coals for recklessness, ideally as a lesson for others*. But the FBI's official judgement unambiguously states that the agency cannot adequately determine that she broke the law.

* We might note the Trump team have ignored that lesson, despite their fixation with Clinton's email woes, because they have been caught doing the same or similar. That should be no surprise, however, because Trump's modus operandi has been contempt of rules, regulations and good process at every turn to get away with what he can, both as businessman and president.

Let me highlight something.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information

That's a very loaded statement. The kind of loaded statement where they did, in fact, find that she broke the law. Not just internal policy, but actual law. However, they were weighing against her intentions to break the law.

I could bring up the report again, but there were in fact several instances of the law being broken, but it was blamed on a comedy of errors instead of any person involved.

 

[Agema]

That's a very loaded statement. The kind of loaded statement where they did, in fact, find that she broke the law. Not just internal policy, but actual law. However, they were weighing against her intentions to break the law.

I would argue that's reading more in than is there.

Normally laws are broken by intent, but can also be by negligence. The next part of that sentence goes on to state that she was extremely careless: the implication of this sentence in full is therefore that if she committed a crime, it would prosecutable under negligence rather than intent. And - as per the end statement - they couldn't even make that stick.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

That's a very loaded statement. The kind of loaded statement where they did, in fact, find that she broke the law. Not just internal policy, but actual law. However, they were weighing against her intentions to break the law.

I would argue that's reading more in than is there.

Normally laws are broken by intent, but can also be by negligence. The next part of that sentence goes on to state that she was extremely careless: the implication of this sentence in full is therefore that if she committed a crime, it would prosecutable under negligence rather than intent. And - as per the end statement - they couldn't even make that stick.

I'm pretty sure they could. I know I couldn't get away with destroying evidence under subpoena by super pinky promising that I already handed over everything important beforehand.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

This has already been discussed to death and I've pointed out why Hillary wanted to please the Saudi's herself several times, so I'm not going back into it. However,

If Hillary had not done her job as Secretary of State, she would have been replaced with someone who would.

"I was just following orders" is explicitly not an excuse. Pretending this situation is manufactured by Trump isn't fooling anyone. Acting like things would be a-okay if he wasn't in office isn't fooling anyone.

No one said Trump manufactured this, however, he is making it worse than anyone else would have. There is a level of degree. Clinton made a deal anyone else in her place would have done. Trump however is OVERRIDING EVERYONE ELSE to do what he wants regardless of what anyone else would have done. Are you going to explain his deal to provide them with Nuclear tech as well? How you can conflate the two to be the same is beyond me.

Congress voted to stop it from happening and he VETOED IT. No one else but Trump would have made that decision. I guess this isn't about ending it to you after all. You pretended to care when Hillary did something negative but when trump makes it far worse than anyone else would have, you are indifferent.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

This has already been discussed to death and I've pointed out why Hillary wanted to please the Saudi's herself several times, so I'm not going back into it. However,

If Hillary had not done her job as Secretary of State, she would have been replaced with someone who would.

"I was just following orders" is explicitly not an excuse. Pretending this situation is manufactured by Trump isn't fooling anyone. Acting like things would be a-okay if he wasn't in office isn't fooling anyone.

No one said Trump manufactured this, however, he is making it worse than anyone else would have. There is a level of degree. Clinton made a deal anyone else in her place would have done. Trump however is OVERRIDING EVERYONE ELSE to do what he wants regardless of what anyone else would have done. Are you going to explain his deal to provide them with Nuclear tech as well? How you can conflate the two to be the same is beyond me.

Congress voted to stop it from happening and he VETOED IT. No one else but Trump would have made that decision. I guess this isn't about ending it to you after all. You pretended to care when Hillary did something negative but when trump makes it far worse than anyone else would have, you are indifferent.

If I seem indifferent it's only because you aren't actually interested in stopping it. This situation is only like this because of decades of foreign policy you regard as acceptable. This really is just a natural extension of what has been happening, that you only notice it now is on you. But you don't even notice it now, you're still claiming that arming the Saudis to better control the middle east is fine, unless Trump does it.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

This has already been discussed to death and I've pointed out why Hillary wanted to please the Saudi's herself several times, so I'm not going back into it. However,

If Hillary had not done her job as Secretary of State, she would have been replaced with someone who would.

"I was just following orders" is explicitly not an excuse. Pretending this situation is manufactured by Trump isn't fooling anyone. Acting like things would be a-okay if he wasn't in office isn't fooling anyone.

No one said Trump manufactured this, however, he is making it worse than anyone else would have. There is a level of degree. Clinton made a deal anyone else in her place would have done. Trump however is OVERRIDING EVERYONE ELSE to do what he wants regardless of what anyone else would have done. Are you going to explain his deal to provide them with Nuclear tech as well? How you can conflate the two to be the same is beyond me.

Congress voted to stop it from happening and he VETOED IT. No one else but Trump would have made that decision. I guess this isn't about ending it to you after all. You pretended to care when Hillary did something negative but when trump makes it far worse than anyone else would have, you are indifferent.

If I seem indifferent it's only because you aren't actually interested in stopping it. This situation is only like this because of decades of foreign policy you regard as acceptable. This really is just a natural extension of what has been happening, that you only notice it now is on you. But you don't even notice it now, you're still claiming that arming the Saudis to better control the middle east is fine, unless Trump does it.

Go ahead and show me where I said I thought it was okay to back Saudi Arabia to control the middle east? Oh yea I did not and have been opposed to it for a very long time now. I don't think the Us should be allied with Saudi Arabia AT ALL, even before the conflict with Yemen due to their human rights violations against women and girls. I oppose the deal Hillary made, but I also realize that deal would have been made if she had never been chosen for secretary of state. The deal was going to be made regardless of who was secretary of state at the time. That is more on Obama's foreign Policy at the time, mind you I was also one of Obama's most vocal opponents on these forums at the time. I have not changed positions and either you have me confused with someone else or you are being disingenuous to state that I am not interested in stopping it.

It isn't going to be able to be stopped at all when Trump is done here because they will no longer need US assistance at all once he enables their Nuclear options. You failing to address that Trump is far worse than Clinton, or just about any other candidate either republican or democrat in regards to Saudi Arabia does not mean that I in any way supported past actions. I have never supported US actions in Saudi Arabia, but I am also not going to pretend that what is happening now isn't far worse than anything that has happened in the past as you seem to be doing. You trust the man who said that Saudi Arabia has to protect themselves or they will have to pay us anyways, and that He said Saudi Arabia was going to get nukes anyways and "They?re going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely." and then he goes and makes secret deals with Saudi Arabia to give them US nuclear Tech? You do not think that and his veto is worse than what has happened previously?

It is not a matter of who is doing it, it is a matter of what they are doing and why.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

This has already been discussed to death and I've pointed out why Hillary wanted to please the Saudi's herself several times, so I'm not going back into it. However,

If Hillary had not done her job as Secretary of State, she would have been replaced with someone who would.

"I was just following orders" is explicitly not an excuse. Pretending this situation is manufactured by Trump isn't fooling anyone. Acting like things would be a-okay if he wasn't in office isn't fooling anyone.

No one said Trump manufactured this, however, he is making it worse than anyone else would have. There is a level of degree. Clinton made a deal anyone else in her place would have done. Trump however is OVERRIDING EVERYONE ELSE to do what he wants regardless of what anyone else would have done. Are you going to explain his deal to provide them with Nuclear tech as well? How you can conflate the two to be the same is beyond me.

Congress voted to stop it from happening and he VETOED IT. No one else but Trump would have made that decision. I guess this isn't about ending it to you after all. You pretended to care when Hillary did something negative but when trump makes it far worse than anyone else would have, you are indifferent.

If I seem indifferent it's only because you aren't actually interested in stopping it. This situation is only like this because of decades of foreign policy you regard as acceptable. This really is just a natural extension of what has been happening, that you only notice it now is on you. But you don't even notice it now, you're still claiming that arming the Saudis to better control the middle east is fine, unless Trump does it.

Go ahead and show me where I said I thought it was okay to back Saudi Arabia to control the middle east? Oh yea I did not and have been opposed to it for a very long time now. I don't think the Us should be allied with Saudi Arabia AT ALL, even before the conflict with Yemen due to their human rights violations against women and girls. I oppose the deal Hillary made, but I also realize that deal would have been made if she had never been chosen for secretary of state. The deal was going to be made regardless of who was secretary of state at the time. That is more on Obama's foreign Policy at the time, mind you I was also one of Obama's most vocal opponents on these forums at the time. I have not changed positions and either you have me confused with someone else or you are being disingenuous to state that I am not interested in stopping it.

It isn't going to be able to be stopped at all when Trump is done here because they will no longer need US assistance at all once he enables their Nuclear options. You failing to address that Trump is far worse than Clinton, or just about any other candidate either republican or democrat in regards to Saudi Arabia does not mean that I in any way supported past actions. I have never supported US actions in Saudi Arabia, but I am also not going to pretend that what is happening now isn't far worse than anything that has happened in the past as you seem to be doing. You trust the man who said that Saudi Arabia has to protect themselves or they will have to pay us anyways, and that He said Saudi Arabia was going to get nukes anyways and "They?re going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely." and then he goes and makes secret deals with Saudi Arabia to give them US nuclear Tech? You do not think that and his veto is worse than what has happened previously?

It is not a matter of who is doing it, it is a matter of what they are doing and why.

But it's not worse than it was though. It's not like they need nukes to commit a genocide, something they're doing quite well with just what was given to them before. By Hillary. This situation was unavoidable as soon as Hillary got put on the ticket.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

This has already been discussed to death and I've pointed out why Hillary wanted to please the Saudi's herself several times, so I'm not going back into it. However,

If Hillary had not done her job as Secretary of State, she would have been replaced with someone who would.

"I was just following orders" is explicitly not an excuse. Pretending this situation is manufactured by Trump isn't fooling anyone. Acting like things would be a-okay if he wasn't in office isn't fooling anyone.

No one said Trump manufactured this, however, he is making it worse than anyone else would have. There is a level of degree. Clinton made a deal anyone else in her place would have done. Trump however is OVERRIDING EVERYONE ELSE to do what he wants regardless of what anyone else would have done. Are you going to explain his deal to provide them with Nuclear tech as well? How you can conflate the two to be the same is beyond me.

Congress voted to stop it from happening and he VETOED IT. No one else but Trump would have made that decision. I guess this isn't about ending it to you after all. You pretended to care when Hillary did something negative but when trump makes it far worse than anyone else would have, you are indifferent.

If I seem indifferent it's only because you aren't actually interested in stopping it. This situation is only like this because of decades of foreign policy you regard as acceptable. This really is just a natural extension of what has been happening, that you only notice it now is on you. But you don't even notice it now, you're still claiming that arming the Saudis to better control the middle east is fine, unless Trump does it.

Go ahead and show me where I said I thought it was okay to back Saudi Arabia to control the middle east? Oh yea I did not and have been opposed to it for a very long time now. I don't think the Us should be allied with Saudi Arabia AT ALL, even before the conflict with Yemen due to their human rights violations against women and girls. I oppose the deal Hillary made, but I also realize that deal would have been made if she had never been chosen for secretary of state. The deal was going to be made regardless of who was secretary of state at the time. That is more on Obama's foreign Policy at the time, mind you I was also one of Obama's most vocal opponents on these forums at the time. I have not changed positions and either you have me confused with someone else or you are being disingenuous to state that I am not interested in stopping it.

It isn't going to be able to be stopped at all when Trump is done here because they will no longer need US assistance at all once he enables their Nuclear options. You failing to address that Trump is far worse than Clinton, or just about any other candidate either republican or democrat in regards to Saudi Arabia does not mean that I in any way supported past actions. I have never supported US actions in Saudi Arabia, but I am also not going to pretend that what is happening now isn't far worse than anything that has happened in the past as you seem to be doing. You trust the man who said that Saudi Arabia has to protect themselves or they will have to pay us anyways, and that He said Saudi Arabia was going to get nukes anyways and "They?re going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely." and then he goes and makes secret deals with Saudi Arabia to give them US nuclear Tech? You do not think that and his veto is worse than what has happened previously?

It is not a matter of who is doing it, it is a matter of what they are doing and why.

But it's not worse than it was though. It's not like they need nukes to commit a genocide, something they're doing quite well with just what was given to them before. By Hillary. This situation was unavoidable as soon as Hillary got put on the ticket.

Go ahead and elaborate. Are you suggesting Hillary manufactured this? I really have to wonder what sort of reality you live in to think that Trump vetoing an effort to stop this and Trump giving them Nuclear tech is not somehow making this much worse. Explain how that is not going to make everything worse in the region, not just for Yemen either. This is escalating confict with Iran to an entirely new level. Once this is done it cannot be undone. OF course this is far worse than anything previously.

In addition, More US citizens voted for Hillary than did for trump, how is her being on the ticket making it unavoidable? She would not have vetoed the effort to stop this and she would not be selling then nuclear tech either. If Hillary had won, yes it would still be bad, but at least there would be a chance to end this. Trump is eliminating current and future ability to end this through his actions.

 

[Agema]

I'm pretty sure they could. I know I couldn't get away with destroying evidence under subpoena by super pinky promising that I already handed over everything important beforehand.

The question is whether she ordered anything destroyed that was subpoenaed, which is not known. The fundamental suspicion - which looks bad for Clinton and part of why proper procedure of communications is so important - is that there was no properly independent oversight of those allegedly irrelevant emails being destroyed. In her favour is that there were mountains of emails involving government business recovered, which suggests wide-scale adherence to preserving them.

Let's also bear in mind what exactly Congress was out to find. The Congressional Benghazi probe was basically just a huge politicised grind to try to maximise embarrassment of Clinton and Obama. Of course it came out with nothing on the main score, because it's clear to anyone neutral that the President and Secretary of State would not be micromanaging the activities of one ambassador and his security arrangements.